ARAKKONAM TALUK POLICE STATION vs KUMAR D Advocate - B.SARALADEVI — 75/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,294(b),323,506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRP090005542021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
554/2021
Filing Date
09-03-2021
Registration No
75/2021
Registration Date
09-03-2021
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Arakkonam
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
30
Police Station
AWPS, GUIDYATHAM
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARAKKONAM TALUK POLICE STATION
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KUMAR D Advocate - B.SARALADEVI
REJESWARI
SUSILA
KOLLAPURI
RAMESH
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Questioning
Questioning
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 06-03-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court (Case No. 75/2021) in Arakkonam acquitted all five accused individuals of charges under IPC Sections 147, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) relating to a January 5, 2017 assault incident. The court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the government witnesses gave contradictory testimonies that conflicted with the case narrative and undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the accused were discharged under CrPC Section 248(1), and their bail bonds were cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court (Case No. 75/2021) in Arakkonam acquitted all five accused individuals of charges under IPC Sections 147, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) relating to a January 5, 2017 assault incident. The court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the government witnesses gave contradictory testimonies that conflicted with the case narrative and undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the accused were discharged under CrPC Section 248(1), and their bail bonds were cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts